‘Halloween II’: Bleak, Brutal and Numbing
by John NolteDirector Rob Zombie’s biggest mistake in 2007’s remake of “Halloween“ was in his desire to “explain” Michael Myers. Most of the narrative was spent building an unimaginative trailer trash mythology, which in turn drained off what made Myers so uniquely terrifying: the fact that he was just some suburban kid who snapped one night. The sequel takes this bad idea a step further, digging into the psyche of our Michael to explain why he’s so determined to kill his sister Laurie. Hint: He wants to bring the family together.
The original “Halloween II” (1981) picked up right where John Carpenter’s 1978 masterpiece left off. Laurie (Jamie Lee Curtis) is in the hospital after the previous night’s attack and Michael returns for another 90 minutes of mayhem. In a nod to the predecessor, Zombie wants us thinking things will go that way until he twists the plot forward a year, but the result is that he just kind of remakes the first one … again.
Except Laurie (Scout Taylor-Compton) has gone all goth and dark now. She’s a very unpleasant, angry, foul-mouthed young woman who hasn’t figured that maybe her nightmares would go away if she found a better class of friends, didn’t sleep on pillowcases covered in skulls or live in what looks like Brad Pitt’s house from “Fight Club.”
There are plenty of killings, but not a single character you sympathize with enough to care, nor is there any suspense. Zombie knows how to frame a shot, he’s got a real eye, but tension requires more than bloody effects and brutal violence. The film has an anarchist feel that’s only interested in the crazy but none of the foreplay. So there are no scares, not even cheap ones. This is one horror movie in need of that screeching cat that jumps from nowhere.
What’s most off-putting is not the meaty visceral gore but Zombie’s focus on the suffering of his victims. Like Myers, Zombie doesn’t know when to quit. The camera lingers long after we get it and to the point where your foot tap-tap-taps to ‘get on with it.’
The original Dr. Loomis (played memorably by Donald Pleasance) was something of a bass-voiced, sedated Kevin McCarthy at the end of the original “Invasion of the Body Snatchers,” the only one who knew what was going on, screaming for others to listen to him. Malcolm McDowell’s Loomis is a high-strung, high-maintenance spoiled prick pimping a book on Myers who seems to be in another movie entirely. It’s all a hollow set up at a redemptive movement that only serves to undermine the good Doctor’s intelligence.
What is consistently enjoyable about a Zombie film are his always interesting casting choices. He seems to be one of those directors with a real affection for character actors, who enjoys the opportunity to work with them. Richard Riehle, Margot Kidder, Octavia Spencer, Howard Hessman, “Weird Al” Yankovic, and Daniel Roebuck are all given a chance to make a mark in relatively small roles. And the great Brad Dourif returns as Sheriff Brackett.
Unfortunately, these are all actors you can see in much better movies.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
29 Comments
This is exactly why I figured this movie wouldn't do too well, it's just so brutal.As you pointed out in your review of Final Destination, people want to have fun not be depressed.
Sequels almost always suck. Halloween has outlived Donald Pleasance by nearly 20 years!
![quote]Except Laurie (Scout Taylor-Compton) has gone all goth and dark now. She’s a very unpleasant, angry, foul-mouthed young woman who hasn’t figured that maybe her nightmares would go away if she found a better class of friends, didn’t sleep on pillowcases covered in skulls or live in what looks like Brad Pitt’s house from “Fight Club.”[/quote]
Sounds like my kinda of girl.
"Director Rob Zombie’s biggest mistake in 2007’s remake of “Halloween“ was in his desire to “explain” Michael Myers."
As much as I disagree with him politically, this is something Roger Ebert mentioned years ago in reviewing the remake of, "House of Wax." I agree it is a mistake.
Obviously this may vary according to the plot and what the creator wants, but at least sometimes a pure, anonymous, elemental evil is the most terrifying. (An exception is "Freddy Kreuger" whose mythology is explained very briefly and clearly and whose mythology is nicely incorporated into the plot. (In the first movie, anyway.))
But I am thinking of the original Michael Myers, Vincent Price's character in many of his movies, Anton Chigurh in "No Country For Old Men" et cetera. They're not "troubled" or "products of a bad situation." They're evil. Period.
Perhaps the best handling of this is the Joker in, "The Dark Knight." There, the Joker gives different a version of what drove him mad every time he tells the story. Does 'why he is evil' matter? He must be fought anyway. Could, perhaps, it have been anyone? Could anyone have had one of those things happen to them and gone mad? Perhaps, but it doesn't matter. The Joker is evil and is relentless. Here and now he must be dealt with.
Elemental evil. Usually scarier than trailer trash mayhem.
Hey John,
I don't think I've ever seen any of the Halloween movies other then the first one and that was years later on the boob tube. This one doesn't sound great, but I'm going to rent this one "cause they used two of Jen's paintings in it. Was there a hotel in this? That's where they told us they'd be used-I think?
I will see it sometime in the future. They filmed it at town near me. Nothing more confusing than to see the town square decorated for Halloween in February.
The only thing that would make me go see one of these movies is if they put Chuck Norris in it to kill the killer but for good. He had a movie like that back in the 80s called Silent Rage–I think. They need to remake that one before they do another Halloween or Friday 13th.
http://conservathink.ning.com
I found this one far more engaging than Zombie's first Halloween – but that's mainly because I despised that film. Here, the lights are lower, the images of Michael are flickering and tough to discern, and there's a welcome sense of mystery.
But the slasher template simply doesn't allow for scares any more … it's time to move on.
I don't recall a hotel in this one.
You raised a good point about her decorating her room with skulls and satanic symbols.
Regarding Zombie focusing on the suffering as you put it . . . i read an interview with him and he explained that by saying he wanted people to see the result of a serial killers rampage. And that is the reason for the hospital scene. He cleary stated that it was not a throw back to the original.
i only saw two films in a movie theater this entire year and both were good, The Dutchess and Destination 9 were both worth seeing on the large screen. Everything else, especially Zombie;s films are strictly at home experiences. In the environment of a home theater. they are fun because you can call out how freaky he and his characters are without bothering a paying customer.
Ewwww….
Why do they always have to remake a classic ? How about something new, fresh ? I thought zombie did a great job on his first film " House of 1000 Corpses". It seems everyone nowadays can't come up with a "new" fresh movie or song. I'm frankly bewildered – all this liberal education and always stepping on others work. Not one ounce of creative thought. I still like zombie – but will wait to see it on dvd. I will say this: Zombie's next project looks real interesting :
"Tyrannosaurus Rex".
Zombie hasn't made an interesting movie since House of 1000 Corpses. The sequel was more of a re-imagining, and it was a bad joke. And his version of Halloween couldn't hold a candle to the original. John's right, we don't want to feel sympathy for the Boogeyman. And we liked him better when he was a supernatural killing machine.
[...] the original post: ‘Halloween II’: Bleak, Brutal and Numbing This entry is filed under America – Blogs, Big Hollywood. You can follow any responses to this [...]
"Director Rob Zombie’s biggest mistake in 2007’s remake of “Halloween“ was in his desire to “explain” Michael Myers."
As much as I disagree with him politically, this is something Roger Ebert mentioned years ago in reviewing the remake of, "House of Wax." I agree it is a mistake.
Obviously this may vary according to the plot and what the creator wants, but at least sometimes a pure, anonymous, elemental evil is the most terrifying. (An exception is "Freddy Kreuger" whose mythology is explained very briefly and clearly and whose mythology is nicely incorporated into the plot. (In the first movie, anyway.))
But I am thinking of the original Michael Myers, Vincent Price's character in many of his movies, Anton Chigurh in "No Country For Old Men" et cetera. They're not "troubled" or "products of a bad situation." They're evil. Period.
Perhaps the best handling of this is the Joker in, "The Dark Knight." There, the Joker gives different a version of what drove him mad every time he tells the story. Does 'why he is evil' matter? He must be fought anyway. Could, perhaps, it have been anyone? Could anyone have had one of those things happen to them and gone mad? Perhaps, but it doesn't matter. The Joker is evil and is relentless. Here and now he must be dealt with.
Elemental evil. Usually scarier than angry "trailer trash" galoots.
I think instead of Jamie Lee Curtis' health care call encouraging neighbors to steal from one another to get free health care we should instead have free Nationalized Single-Payer Entertainment
Since life with art means death then Hollywood and Bway should be free to everyone;with Nationalized Single-Payer Entertainment we can end the bad ways of greedy producers, writers, directors, actors, stage-hands.
Then all that money we save with Nationalized Single-Payer Entertainment we can use our hard earned dollars to buy health insurance of our own individual choosing.
Nationalized Single-Payer Entertainment will leave us free to choose our health care.
We are entitled to have Nationalized Single-Payer Entertainment! Give it to us now greedy Jamie Lee Curtiis!
I'm just curious if anyone is ever going to fix the crappy auto-editor on this site, or if it's just going to suck indefinitely. It's really tiring to have post after post going into permanent review mode when their is no profanity, no insults, and nothing even remotely controversial involved. The posts never appear (or do so after days, when no one is aware the thread even exists any more), and there is never an explanation for why they were pulled in the first place. I don't visit a lot of boards, but this is the only one I've ever had problems like this with , and it's amazing that months later it's still happening.
Zombie does linger far too long on suffering. I made it about halfway through Devil's Rejects before turning it off because there's only so much sadism I can endure, especially when there is zero point to it. Even in that s****y sequel to Hostel, at least there was a vague metaphor about American foreign policy. I've seen three of Zombie's films, and all are sadistic and nihilistic, full of style while have no sense of humor – even the Wiley Coyote ending to Devil's Rejects lacked … something.
Sign me on for this one!! It would be easy to make the solipistic but seemingly egalitarian argument that goes somethign like this. "In the 21st Century we must now recognize that society's need for entertained is a basic human right that should not depend on a person's income or economic status. It is immoral to let " the marke" who can and who cannot afford this vital service. National Single-Payer Entertainment will insure that every resident of the U.S. receives high-quality and affordable entertainment regardless of economic status and will control the spiraling costs of entertainment by limiting the inflated amount paid to greedy actors, directors, executives, writers, musicians and video game manufacturers and others who receive bloated profits as a result of these inequities."
How about it? As I said sign me up. It's one hell of an idea.
Socialized medicine could then be implemented to insure artistic quality since all great art is a consequence of suffering. Art or not, we'll be knee deep in fecal matter in our waiting rooms and galleries.
And is it just me or does that photo have a Obama as Joker feel, like maybe Obama does the Phantom Of The Opera?
Friday the Halloweenth on Elm Street: The Remake Of The Sequel, Part XXIII…
Cue (dead) Don LaFontaine: "In a world where no one has cultivated an original thought in decades, where entertainment elites expect rewards for counterfeiting bad imitations of heaps of offensive refuse…
You are right in saying that Carpenters “Halloween” is a masterpiece. Zombie has no creative talent and I won’t watch this trash. There is no art in today’s horror, just money.
[...] at Big Hollywood, John Nolte says it’s a big mistake to try to explain Michael Myers in the “Halloween” reboot and [...]
I don't understand how Zombie is finally realizing his masterpiece or whatever on remaking a movie that already had 6 or so sequels, are we to understand that "his" masterpiece is something already done into the ground by numerous other people?
watch Halloween II online
http://bit.ly/qeppb
You must be logged in to post a comment.